new | show | ask | jobs Github

bundie 4 hours ago

For the record, this is the argument ONLYOFFICE's lawyer is making:

- ONLYOFFICE is under AGPLv3 since 2016.

- AGPLv3 requires source disclosure, preserving the license, and keeping copyright notices.

- Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use.

- You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software.

- Ignoring these conditions is a license breach and copyright infringement.

▲

cwillu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software.

Good thing that the license says in section 7: “[…] When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions [“terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions”] from that copy, or from any part of it. […]”

▲

kube-system 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That clause doesn't apply because we're talking about an additional restriction, not an additional permission.

But, same result, because it also says:

> If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

A restriction stating "you must keep branding" can be ignored. What you can require, is attribution.

▲

X-Ryl669 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The license contains (section 7):

> [you may] supplement the terms of this License with terms: > >[...] > > b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or > author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal > Notices displayed by works containing it; or > > c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or > requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in > reasonable ways as different from the original version; or > > d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or > authors of the material; or > > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some > trade names, trademarks, or service marks;

So the requirement of branding and attribution aren't "further restriction" (which, in this context, means a restriction that is not in the AGPLv3 license text). It's after section 7's list of allowed restrictions, which, paragraph b, contains "require preservation of [...] legal notices or [...] attributions", paragraph d is made to prevent misuse of the original author reputation, and paragraph e to prevent misuse of trademarks, so they, IMHO, are all legitimate.

	▲	kube-system 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, preservation of [...] author attributions --- not branding or logos These are different things. However, I did glance at the repo and I don't see any attributions, either.

▲

kube-system 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Their lawyer is right about everything except:

> - Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use.

Section 7 allows you to add permissions, but it prohibits any restrictions beyond the options listed in section 7.

▲

X-Ryl669 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and OO provided a description for it: its logo and its trademark.

	▲	kube-system 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, logos and trademarks are neither "legal notices" nor "author attributions". It's simply not what those words mean. A "legal notice" is some sort of legally relevant document. An "author attribution" is a plaintext recognition of the original copyright holder. If you look at the repo, it looks like the did fail to include author attributions, as far as I can see. The source files need to say they were originally written by OO. That's what author attribution means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice